I don't agree. Basic D&D didn't have 9 alignments - it had 3 (L/N/C). And 4e is closer to Basic than AD&D in it's system. Both emphasise alignment as an expression of a particular cosmology (Law vs Chaos in OD&D and Basic, Gods vs Primordials in 4e) rather than as an ostensibly generic tool for the moral description of character behaviour.
Alignment in D&DN...
- Thread starter Zireael
- Start date
A
amerigoV
Guest
It works very well when it is part of the system like Savage Worlds or Cortex. The players get rewarded for playing to those hindrances/drawbacks (as opposed to punished for not playing their alignment). Without the "its evil, kill it" aspect of alignment, its fun to watch players struggle with knowing someone is the villain but they just cannot slaughter him since they do not have the proof (no Detect Evil). Its my preferred style of gaming these days.
That said, its not D&D
I always view alignment as a mechanism that lets the PC slaughter monsters by the millions and not have any guilt about it (and the player does not have to get into a moral debate about it either). You see that wall of Monster Manuals over there? That's your playground - have at it! You can attack orcs and mindflayers on sight since the're evil. Its not that they are bad, a different culture, mean, or misunderstood. They are EEEEEEVIL! You can even kill baby orcs because when you open the door to the nursery you see the Orclings torturing cute puppies and raping hapless Guinea Pigs! All the good gods endorse your actions! The alignment on the PC's character sheet is just to remind the players that they should feel guilty about killing the townsfolk and other goodly races - try not to do that! (except for Gnomes, which should be exterminated regardless of alignment) All in all, Alignment is the grease that allows the "kick in the door, kill it, and take their stuff" cycle of D&D to flow smoothly. You can take alignment out of the game pretty easily, but it takes one of the fun things about D&D away as well (guiltless mayhem - a signature of D&D)
It works very well when it is part of the system like Savage Worlds or Cortex. The players get rewarded for playing to those hindrances/drawbacks (as opposed to punished for not playing their alignment). Without the "its evil, kill it" aspect of alignment, its fun to watch players struggle with knowing someone is the villain but they just cannot slaughter him since they do not have the proof (no Detect Evil). Its my preferred style of gaming these days.
That said, its not D&D
All in all, Alignment is the grease that allows the "kick in the door, kill it, and take their stuff" cycle of D&D to flow smoothly. You can take alignment out of the game pretty easily, but it takes one of the fun things about D&D away as well (guiltless mayhem - a signature of D&D)
What keeps you from marking those orclings as cruel and sadistic in terms of "alignment traits"?
SensoryThought
First Post
Alignment is not a big part of my games but I do think the 9 alignments (10 including unaligned as opposed to true N) are very iconic and should stay.
am181d
Adventurer
That's not an argument that alignments aren't an iconic part of D&D. That's an argument that Basic wasn't a fully fleshed out game and 4e went off the rails a bit.
Again, the mission statement of 5e is to consolidate what's great about D&D. If the goal was to burn it all down and start over from scratch, I'd be right there with you.
A
amerigoV
Guest
But then the problem becomes "is that a learned trait or inherant trait"? Now, a debate breaks out if the Orclings can be "saved", which slows down the process of kicking down the next door. Using alignment, one quick Detect Evil or Know Alignment and you put them sword in a merciful way.
I'm not saying its a bad thing to move to traits and to have moral issues - it makes for a deep and interesting game. But alignment brings something that is iconic D&D - you can slaughter orcs without blinking an eye.
I actually think the opposite. Good/Evil is purely subjective, and a matter of perspective. Noone sane actually considers themselves Evil.
Law vs Chaos is more objective. There are certainly people that describe themselves as wanting weaker law, and greater personal freedom. The "Chaos" label itself has a negative connotation (so I doubt most would use it as a self-label), but the ideas and beliefs it's supposed to represent are clear and coherent.
kitsune9
Adventurer
Interesting point! If you had to slaughter a sacred cow just to make the game stand different, which one would you pick?
S
Sunseeker
Guest
Problematically, laws are subjective.
A lawful paladin might have trouble in the "you have to kill baby orclings on sundays" evil kingdom. So this is why we call him "lawful good", because he's lawful yes, but he's also good. If the laws aren't good-natured, then the paladin doesn't have to follow them.
It's the duality of the system that allows us to define character actions. Lawful and Chaotic are a linear spectrum. Lawful to Chaotic combined with Good to evil make for at least a 2-dimensional spectrum, allowing a much greater range of expression for both characters and DMs.
Personally, to make this really deep, we need a 3rd spectrum. Then we can have 27 alignments, because ya know, why not?
Similar Threads
